I guess the question is: why create a non-standard "placebo"? This new "placebo" chemistry may create issues unrelated to your drug. If possible, I would recommend sticking to using the placebo intended - exact same chemistry as drug without the API. The reason we do this is to rule out effects of the drug chemistry used with the API in our human trial data. This is also why we need to send specific drug and placebo CMC data in with each application: to specifically document the two chemistries. Using a non-standard "placebo" may interfere with your ability to interpret your data. Best to have a really strong rationale if you choose to use a non-standard "placebo" for your trial and carefully describe the limits imposed on your data interpretations due to this choice of non-standard "placebo"... for example, how will your stats work if you do not have an appropriate placebo for the control part of your trial?
What are you controlling exactly if not the chemistry of your drug? ETC, etc.
------------------------------
Joy Frestedt PHD, CPI, RAC, FRAPS, FACRP
President and CEO
Frestedt Incorporated (www.frestedt.com)
Saint Louis Park MN
United States
612-219-9982
jf@frestedt.com------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 28-Apr-2021 11:23
From: Anonymous Member
Subject: Placebo Question
This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous
If placebo is being used for a proof of concept phase 2a study for safety and early indications of efficacy signals, does CMC need to have and "analytical placebo" which has the same formulation as the DP (without API) or can they do something more generic that has the exact same look and weight as the DP (not the exact same composition otherwise)? Knowing that information on the placebo will be submitted and the ID of the placebo shall be distinguished from actual drug oral formulation, etc, I assume this is acceptable?